How important is traditional narrative structure (stories with an explicit beginning, middle
and end) for archaeologists? To answer this question fully would demand attention
to human and historical ontologies and archaeological epistemologies, as well as analysis
of the kinds of pasts archaeologists prefer to present. In their favour it is here argued
that historical narratives are generally complex (for example, in comparison with those
preferred by practitioners of the hard sciences, who typically find reductionism the most
powerful methodological tool). Narratives may even in some way map onto natural and
common structures of human experience. But they also perhaps have a particular affinity
to archaeological practices, with the chronological sequence of narrative reflecting in reverse
order the process of actual or metaphorical excavation, and hence mimicking the reconstruction
of a past told as cause and effect. Narratives can also offer a sense of coherence,
resolution and closure, which may encourage a kind of intellectual conservatism. So
too may socio-political pressures to conform with existing dominant narratives within the
profession. However, despite the potential pitfalls of too strong an adherence to narrative
form, and the values of alternative modes of presentation such as non-narrative evocation,
it is suggested that narrative should remain an important style of archaeological explanation,
albeit with a commitment to open-endedness and an awareness of the possibilities of
life beyond narrative.